Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Chef

A Department Store Restaurant

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00063201-001

11/01/2024

The employer has a contract to run restaurants in two department stores.  On November 16th 2023, the worker commenced employment as an executive chef in one of the stores, which has four restaurants.  He was dismissed just over seven weeks later, on January 8th 2024.

The worker said that, in addition to the 40 hours per week that he was contractually required to work, he had to put in extra hours to perform daily tasks related to hygiene and food preparation.  He had to open and close the kitchen and said that he worked over nine hours a day for a five- or six-day week.  He said that he would generally be at work for two or three hours after the normal operating hours.  The worker said that the business was short of staff and in addition to his job as an executive chef, with all the administrative work associated with that position, he had to cook and manage the “pass” in one of the restaurants in the department store.   He said that he also had to move stock from the store to the restaurant. 

On the form he submitted to the WRC on January 11th 2024, the worker said that he only had one meeting with one of the directors in the first week of his employment, to discuss a complaint about a delay in service.  He said that, at the time, three chefs were rostered, but four were required.  He said that half of the chefs were new hires and they didn’t have enough experience to provide the quality of service that was required.  He said that he did his best with the staff that he had.  He complained that he had “no paperwork” with directions on how to run the kitchen and no standard operating procedures.

The worker said that, after that first meeting, he had no inclination that his performance was not up to standard and there were no more meetings.  He got no verbal or written warnings and he claims that his dismissal was unfair.

On behalf of the employer, one of the directors who attended the hearing said that, on the day that he arrived in the department store, he met the worker and went though the components of his job managing the four restaurants.  Afte that, he had meetings with him every Thursday and one of the directors spend a Saturday in the store.  There were delays in service on day one, and, after that, arising from complaints from customers, there were complaints from the department store about the service.  One of the directors said that, although he is not a chef, he could run a kitchen he had to take charge in the kitchen.

The director explained that the business has an application (“an App”) called “Market Man” to which is uploaded all the recipes for the four restaurants, with ingredients and the method for making each dish.  Photographs of the finished plates are also provided.  He said that this is the standard operating procedure for each menu item.

The worker was given an opportunity to move to a different restaurant, but when he went there, another chef complained about how she was treated by him.  On January 8th 2024, one of the directors said that he sat down with the worker and explained that, in his view, he wasn’t able to run the kitchen and that they couldn’t continue his employment.  He was paid one week’s pay in lieu of notice.

I have considered the worker’s submission at the hearing and his argument that his dismissal was unfair and that, due to staff shortages and administration, he wasn’t able to do his job.  He was a qualified chef, but it seems to me that he may have been recruited into a role that required more experience than he had and this led to him spending long hours on paperwork and on issues other than cooking such as hygiene and staff rostering.

I have also taken account of the directors’ version of what occurred and I accept that there was regular communication with the worker regarding the issues that, in the end, led to him being dismissed.  The employer had taken some trouble to find the worker, having recruited him through a work permit scheme.  In an environment in which it is difficult to find qualified chefs, they made every effort to keep him in the job and it is my view that his dismissal came about only when it became clear that the interventions they had tried were not working.

The worker was dismissed because of his performance in his job, and not because of any disciplinary issue or misconduct.  It is my view that the employer made reasonable efforts to address the underperformance and to direct the worker in ways to achieve the standard required.  I find that no unfairness arises from the failure to invoke the disciplinary procedure or to issue him with warnings.

I recommend that the worker and the employer take no further action regarding this dispute.

Performance, dismissal